Tim Graham is sticking to the company line in his Dec. 10 NewsBusters post that the 11-second "ants-on-Jesus" video the MRC succeeded in getting censored from a Smithsonian exhibition is "mocking Jesus Christ," and he misleads about other things too.

In attacking a Washington Post article on the manufactured controversy, Graham mocks the universally accepted idea advanced by article author Philip Kennicott that art should be viewed in the context of the time of its creation and the artist's intent, complaining that it "somehow excuses Jesus-bashing art." Which, of course, it doesn't. As Kennicott explained:

Even the image that has recently sparked controversy -- a crucifix covered in ants -- is a complicated amalgam of the artist's personal and religious themes.

Ants, for Wojnarowicz, were a mysterious stand-in for humanity and part of a lifelong fascination with the natural world that his friend, artist Kiki Smith, recalls was part of a charmingly boyish rapture with creepy, crawling things. When asked what he thought of God, he responded by wondering rhetorically "why ants aren't the things that destroy the world instead of people." There is a host of theological possibility in that thought: Is God as indifferent to humans as humans are to ants? Should we love the small things of the planet as we hope to be loved by God?

Graham goes on to portray Kennicott as having "railed against the cruelty of Reagan conservatives and the Catholic Church." In fact, Kennicott highlighted the dual nature of the church at the onset of the AIDS epidemic: "When AIDS was ravaging the gay population of New York, the church was officially the enemy; but some Catholic service organizations were on the front lines of relief. The church was a complicated organization, monolithic only in the minds of its leaders. Wojnarowicz's imagery was richly Catholic because Catholicism was richly multivalent."

Graham then attacks Kennicott's statement that William F. Buckley's suggestion that AIDS victims be tattooed was "entirely within the mainstream for public commentary on the disease the year before Wojnarowicz found out he was HIV-positive":

The Post utterly failed to put any copy editors on what happened with Buckley's comment. He very much resented the idea that he was implying the Nazis (obviously, the columnist proposed these humiliating tattoos as a life-saving mark, not as a death-camp image.) Buckley ended up not only recanting the tattoo idea, and having a meeting with the Gay Men's Health Crisis and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Buckley made his tattooing suggestion in a New York Times op-ed -- the epitome of "the mainstream for public commentary." Further, Buckley didn't completely abandon the idea. in a 2005 National Review commentary, he wrote: "Someone, 20 years ago, suggested a discreet tattoo the site of which would alert the prospective partner to the danger of proceeding as had been planned. But the author of the idea was treated as though he had been schooled in Buchenwald, and the idea was not widely considered, but maybe it is up now for reconsideration." That, plus Buckley's invoking of a promiscuous gay with AIDS named "Tony Venenum" -- "venenum" is Latin for poison -- tells us he was not as apologetic about his idea as Graham would like you to believe.

For more evidence ostracising AIDS victims in society, through tattooing or quarantine, was very much in "the mainstream for public commentary" at the time, note that none other than current Republican presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee once advocated quaranting AIDS victims. And as recently as 2005, WorldNetDaily's Les Kinsolving -- who appears in the White House briefing room every day -- called for "mass hospital prison-camp quarantines" of AIDS victims.

The forces of evil never take a break. Even in modern times it was the 20th century that gave humanity more genocidal megalomaniacs than the previous 19 centuries put together – Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Amin, Pol Pot, Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini and legions of anonymous abortion doctors.

Recalling the perpetual death spiral between good and evil since antiquity, Gandalf warned his protégé, Frodo the ring-bearer: "Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again."

In "Lord of the Rings," good and evil was clearly defined, but presently not only is good and evil obscured, it is Kafkaesque – a surreal distortion of God, truth, the Bible, the Constitution and the rule of law.

Politically speaking, since Dr. Wiker writes, "Hobbits are true conservatives, the Anti-Federalists of Middle Earth," then to defeat Obama's fascist, one-world government agenda against America, let all Americans of good will put on Samwise's mantle of undying loyalty and stubborn fight to defend the Constitution and embrace Sam's rallying cry to Frodo as our daily bread.

Let every American work in unison to cast down every unconstitutional policy the fascist Age of Obama has resurrected and schemed and, like Frodo, cast down the omnipotent, evil Ring of Sauron (Darwinism, progressivism, socialism, liberalism) into its rightful place … the ash heap of history.

The Media Research Center is not content with merely censoring art; now it wants to shout down anyone who voices support for the censored art.

Keeping up its war on the Smithsonian over the exhibit on gay portraiture at the National Portrait Gallery, MRC Action has launched an "Action Letter" to "Tell The Washington Post: 'Stop Supporting Smithsonian Smut!'"

MRC has identified the key liberal media offenders who have supported the Smithsonian Smut either by their silence or glowing praise. The leading offender is the Washington Post which published a favorable review, attacked critics of the exhibit's obscenity as "censors," and then encouraged readers to see the exhibit.

MRC has launched their Hand-delivery Letter Campaign to rally and gather thousands of letters from our team members telling Washington Post to Stop Supporting Smithsonian Smut. Simply complete the form below to have your letters hand-delivered to key Washington Post officials starting Thursday (December 9).

Funny how the MRC thinks trying to shut down an art exhibition isn't censorship.

MRC Action even helpfully provides "talking points" for people to copy-and-paste into their haranguing letters:

--The Washington Post has crossed a line in its coverage of the Smithsonian's new art exhibit, "Hide/Seek." The Post's reporting on the exhibit has featured glowing praise while failing to highlight the controversial, obscene materials. Even worse, this exhibit was promoted to children through a "Family Day" and yet the Post can only offer support while labeling critics as "censors." I am calling on the Post to STOP its biased reporting on this obscene Smithsonian exhibit.

--I am emailing you because I am outraged that the Washington Post has supported the Smithsonian's new "Hide/Seek" homoerotic art exhibit. The Post has promoted the exhibit through a glowing review and other promotional efforts while failing to mention the blatant obscenity and other offensive items in Hide/Seek. To make matters worse, the Post intentionally labeled those offering reasonable criticisms of the exhibit as "censors." Stop the bias!

--The Washington Post should issue a formal apology to its readers for your reporting on the Smithsonian's new "Hide/Seek" homoerotic art exhibit. Your reporting has offering nothing but glowing praise while failing to point out the blatant obscenity -- or the fact that this exhibit was openly marketed to children! You owe it to your readers to provide a truthful report -- not a biased puff piece that supports your political or cultural agenda.

What the MRC really wants the Post to "formally" apologize for is reporting anything that contradicts its right-wing orthodoxy -- like the idea that art that offends has merit. In short, the MRC wants the Post to apologize for telling the truth. Telling the truth, after all, is something the MRC can't abide when it conflicts with the MRC's agenda.

Because the MRC is trying to stop the truth from being told, it's acting as a censor.

As we've detailed, the Smithsonian controversy is entirely manufactured by the MRC and its agents, including the Catholic League's Bill Donohue (the MRC's Brent Bozell is on the Catholic League board of advisors).

In a Dec. 7 WorldNetDaily article, Aaron Klein writes that "Pieces of U.S. State Department diplomatic correspondence have been referring to the Hezbollah terrorist organization as a 'resistance' group, according to cables released by WikiLeaks and reviewed by WND."

Except that's not true. The evidence Klein provides is a statement from a memo that "U.S.-Syrian discussions on Hezbollah have tended to 'agree to disagree' after hitting the wall of conflicting views on the legitimacy of armed resistance and Israeli occupation."

Much as Klein would like to think otherwise, that isolated statement is not evidence that the U.S. thinks Hezbollah is a "resistance" group. In fact, that statement in context of the entire memo is a portrayal of Hezbollah thinks of themselves, not the opinion of the U.S. government:

U.S.-Syrian discussions on Hizballah have tended to "agree to disagree" after hitting the wall of conflicting views on the legitimacy of armed resistance and Israeli occupation. Syrian officials, including President Asad, emphasize their political link to Hizballah and flatly deny that Syria is arming Hizballah. They then defend the right to armed resistance in response to prolonged Israeli occupation of Syrian and Lebanese territory. When convenient, Syrian officials claim they no longer have responsibility for Hizballah, noting "we are out of Lebanon." President Asad and FM Muallim have also suggested that the challenge of disarming Hizballah would be solved after Syria and Israel signed a peace treaty. This agreement would lead naturally to a deal between Lebanon and Israel, thereby removing the rationale for Hizballah's resistance movement and setting the stage for the transition of Hizballah to a purely political party.

There's nothing in the memo to support Klein's false suggestion that the U.S. considers Hezbollah to be legitimate "resistance" -- something Klein essentially admits by noting that "The cable and others from around the same time period went on to detail a series of complaints the State Department filed with the Syrian government over its continued arming of Hezbollah to the point the Iranian-backed group is thought to have more than 40,000 rockets and missiles pointed at Israel."

So there's no real reason for this article to exist except to falsely smear the Obama administration. Klein fails to note, however, that the memo was issued in 2007, when Obama was not the president.

WND Afraid 'Tangled' Teaches Children to Think For ThemselvesTopic: WorldNetDaily

In his review of the Disney film "Tangled," WorldNetDaily news editor Drew Zahn states that "there is much to praise" in the film. But... there is much not to like "if you but stop and analyze the resounding message this movie plants in children's minds." Indeed, it peddles a "very worldly and yet completely wicked and untrue philosophy on adolescence."

And what is that "wicked and untrue philosophy"? The idea of adolescent rebellion:

And, of course, Ryder and Rapunzel are proved justified in the girl's rebellion, the mother is shown wicked and the youngsters' little "road trip" proves to be just what the doctor ordered. And it's all OK for the young minds in the audience to be seeped in this spirit of defiance and parent-degradation, because the mother is really the bad guy.

Happily ever after. Walk out of the theater smiling. And then, somehow, be surprised when your children think you're an overprotective know-nothing, assume they're justified in rebellion and do a little bar-hopping, frat-party "road trip" of their own.

Wait. What happened to the happy ending?

Is "Tangled" just describing adolescent life as it is? Or is it part of a wider culture that is prescribing life as it wants to be to loose teens from their parents in order to teach its own values?

I'm the father of four teenagers, and like many parents, I've found that adolescents do begin at about that age to think critically about authority. They question the old rules, they long for and test their independence. Stretching the wings is a necessary part of growing up.

But nowhere does God prescribe rebellion and defiance as a proper path to adulthood. It is not "good" and it is not "healthy." No, contrary to popular belief and Disney brainwashing, children do not have to suddenly become the spawn of Satan (the first rebel, after all) when they turn 13.

One of the greatest rewards I've found in watching the homeschooling community is that its children are often raised by parents who question the entire worldly paradigm of what kids are like and supposed to be, including what they can be like as teenagers. And while every community has its share of rebellious and difficult teens, I have marveled at watching how some young men and women from families that reject the message of "Tangled" grow up in partnership with their parents to be models of respect and independence tempered by Godly submission. They are the best example I have seen to prove rebellion is simply not a mandate.

Got that? Teenagers should never rebel against their parents -- shouldn't even think different, apparently. Submission, not independence, is the order of the day.

That was such silly opinion that even Zahn conceded he might be wrong.

In a follow-up column, Zahn begins by condescendingly writing that "Occasionally, one of my critics makes a point so well, so thoughtfully, I must concede the merit of their argument." He then reprints a letter from a mother whose daughter disagreed with the idea that the movie left "the impression that it was OK to rebel against her parents." The parent then provided a slightly less controlling theory -- after all, she does think that "we should expect obedience [from children] by instilling truth with loving discipline so they will not look for something else" -- that Zahn could apparently live with:

In short, we are all children of the King, and until we see the Light, we remain imprisoned under the control of a lying, deceptive, manipulative "mother"; and no matter how much we question Who the Light is, we will not know Him until we set out to seek and discover Him for ourselves. We will never be satisfied until we are safely in the arms of the One to Whom we really belong. We should not listen to anyone who keeps us from Jesus, even if it is our own parents, but we need to do it in a way that is honorable. Even if we have our children dedicated and raise our kids to know Jesus, they will not be reconciled to the King until they have their own moment of revelation and embrace the Truth themselves.

At least this mother, unlike Zahn, seems to acknowledge the existence of free will.

A Dec. 1 CNSNews.com article by Edwin Mora keeps up CNS' obsession with tracking U.S. troop casualties in Afghanistan: "At least 45 U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan last month--more than two-and-a-half times the 17 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan in November 2009--making November 2010 the deadliest November since the war began more than nine years ago, according to CNSNews.com’s database of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan."

Missing from Mora's article: the word "Iraq." Therefore, Mora's readers aren't aware that November's casualty rate in Afghanistan is one-third that of peak casualty rates at the height of the Iraq war.

The Washington City Paper has a story on how CNS' Penny Starr and the Media Research Center manufactured the scandal over the supposedly offensive and blasphemous art exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery.

Meanwhile ...Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is, of course, ecstatic that Sarah Palin told ABC's Barbara Walters that she reads their website. Media Matters has a brief history of the symbiotic relationship between Newsmax and Palin.

Bozell Attacks Only Liberal Supporters of WikiLeaksTopic: Media Research Center

Brent Bozell's Dec. 8 column whips up some outrage over those who won't condemn Julian Assange and WikiLeaks -- but only those on one side of the political spectrum. He claims without evidence that "in the liberal media, the condemnations are few" against Assange, and he cites only two examples of alleged praise of Assange in the "liberal media."

Curiously, Bozell won't criticize supporters of Assange who reside on his side of the political spectrum -- and you think he might have noticed one, since he appears on Bozell's favorite channel, Fox News.

Andrew Napolitano -- Fox News analyst and host of a show on its sister channel Fox Business -- has argued in favor of Assange's First Amendment rights.

Another WikiLeaks supporter is WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day, who wrote in his Dec. 6 column that "WikiLeaks is one of the last defenses that Americans have against the centralized control of communication being exerted by the U.S. government over the citizenry," and that "those so-called conservatives who have waxed hysterical in their contemptible fulminations against Assange" are "ideological frauds, enemies of democracy and false friends of human liberty."

Republican Rep. Ron Paul is another big WikiLeaks booster, who (while, of course, appearing on Napolitano's TV show) endorsed a WikiLeaks-style assault on the Federal Reserve: "Can you imagine what it'd be like if we had every conversation in the last 10 years with our Federal Reserve people, the Federal Reserve chairman, with all the central bankers of the world and every agreement or quid-pro-quo they have? It would be massive. People would be so outraged."

Larry Klayman -- whose "Judicial Watch litigation machine" Bozell highlighted in one of his columns -- has also sung the praises of WikiLeaks: "Whatever your opinion about Julian Assange, he did a real service to our nation and the world in revealing, in particular, the dangerous internal workings of the corrupt Obama foreign-policy establishment."

Unless Bozell can hold his own allies responsible for their support of Assange, his howling about purported liberals who support him is just empty political opportunism.

UPDATE: The list keeps growing: WND columnist Ilana Mercer calls Bradley Manning, the Army soldier of leaking the documents to WikiLeaks, a "whistleblower" while denouncing "collectivist impulse among so many of freedom's so-called defenders to condemn a man that took a great personal risk so as to expose the workings of the U.S. Empire."

This is becoming a thing. A Dec. 8 WorldNetDaily article complains yet again that White House press secreatary Robert Gibbs didn't answer a question that wasn't asked because WND's Les Kinsolving wasn't called on at the press briefing:

For the third time in a row, Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House and the second-most senior reporter on the White House beat behind Connie Lawn, was not recognized for questions at today's daily briefing.

The result is that there were no answers from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs or others at the briefing today on what the president thinks about a university snub of his Chicago buddy Bill Ayers.

One of the questions Kinsolving had prepared to ask was, "Does the president believe that Sen. Robert Kennedy's son, Christopher, and all the rest of the trustees of the University of Illinois at Chicago were wrong to deny the title of professor emeritus to Bill Ayers?"

As before, WND has not demonstrated why anyone who would ask such a biased, irrelevant question is deserving of any respect from the White House or its press corps.

So far, threeCNSarticles feature various members of Congress being asked during the lighting of the Christmas tree at the Capitol whether they believed that Jesus had a right to life from the moment of conception. Allo f the congressmen asked thus far were Republican, so at this point it's sort of an anti-gotcha -- it gives them a freebie opportunity to play to their conservative Christian base.

Once CNS moves on to asking the question of Democrats -- as it most certainly will -- the point becomes embarrassment.

A Dec. 8 WorldNetDaily promo for Judith Reisman's anti-Kinsey screed "Sexual Sabotage" carries the headline "The father of child pornography."

Really? There was no child pornography before 1947? Is that what they're trying to say?

The article goes on to assert that, per Reisman, Kinsey is "not only a scientific fraud but a supremely sick and perverted human being – a sexual psychopath who reveled in the criminal molestation of hundreds of infants and children."

The problem is that Reisman has long engaged in shoddy research to promote her anti-Kinsey crusade, and there's no real reason to assume anything has changed in "Sexual Sabotage," despite WND's claim that Reisman's work is "frighteningly true."

The Kinsey Institute has responded to such claims: "Kinsey did not carry out any experiments on children, nor did he hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and he in no way condoned any sexual abuse."

The institute has even responded to the "Esther White" case, in which a woman claimed that Kinsey paid her father "to rape her and then report to him on the attacks." As we noted, the woman has offered no substantive evidence to back up her claims, and WND reporter Brian Fitzpatrick, who promoted the case in October, made no apparent effort to obtain the institute's side of the story. He could have pulled it off the website:

We have no reason to doubt that this woman was sexually abused. People may have used Kinsey's name to justify any sorts of behavior, but that is beyond the control of the researchers.

It is possible that this woman's father or grandfather wrote to Kinsey, as many people did, but he never encouraged any such behavior. Following that documentary, we checked through Kinsey's correspondence and could not find any that would match this story.

Kinsey did not ask people to fill out questionnaires or forms. There was no experimentation, and no one was 'recruited' to 'participate,' and certainly not to molest anyone. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of these claims. The research consisted of interviewing people about their sexual lives and relationships.

Nevertheless, WND promotes Reisman's version of Kinsey has some sort of superhuman villain: "Kinsey succeeded in promoting widespread sexual experimentation and immorality. He single-handedly gutted the tough laws that kept pornography and predators at bay in America."

Between Reisman's history of shoddy research and WND's wildly overblown claims here -- all designed to promote a special on Reisman's book -- there's really no reason to take any of this seriously, making WND's $4.95 offer perhaps still too much to pay for her screed.

Maryland's Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, on Nov. 30, issued a statement that included the following:

"Sexual orientation should never be used to determine the contributions any man or woman makes to our military."

This invariably suggests that all sexual orientations should be eligible for military service. That would include pedophilia and bestiality.

On the same day, President Obama declared:

"Today I call on the Senate to act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal (of 'don't ask, don't tell') into law this year and ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally."

This presidential-designated category also raises the question about the armed forces accepting such additional alternative sexual orientations as necrophiliacs, coprophiliacs and urophiliacs.

In his Dec. 8 "AIM Report," Cliff Kincaid argues for bringing back the House Un-American Activities Committee, best known for its witch hunts against anyone remotely suspected of being communist. Why? He has one particular suspected communist in mind that he'd like to lead a witch hunt against:

Dinesh D’Souza says in his new book that Barack Obama is an anti-colonialist. Stanley Kurtz has a new book, Radical-in-Chief, which says Obama is a socialist. The new book Dupes by Paul Kengor tells the unvarnished truth. And that’s because he makes use of material we started releasing back in February 0f 2008 about Obama’s communist mentor, Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis. New Zeal blogger Trevor Loudon broke that story and we confirmed it.

I hate to say, “We told you so,” but Herbert Romerstein and I held a briefing in May of 2008 in Washington, D.C. releasing two reports, “Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection,” and “Communism in Hawaii and the Obama Connection.” Then, in August of 2008, I released the 600-page FBI file on Frank Marshall Davis. The response from the media included Dana Milbank of the Washington Post making fun of us and Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report refusing to run paid advertising on the Obama-Davis connection.

The liberal and conservative media had their heads in the sand. They couldn’t come to grips with the unprecedented prospect of a possible agent of influence for the international Marxist movement occupying the oval office.

[...]

The difference between calling Obama an anti-colonialist, a socialist, or a Marxist mentored by a top operative of the CPUSA is that one category should immediately earn you an FBI investigation. Former FBI agent Max Noel says the Bureau used to investigate candidates for federal employment by analyzing Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty to the United States. The first letters in those words make up the acronym CARL.

Obama could not have been elected president if he had been subjected to the CARL test. Leaving Davis aside – and he was on the FBI’s “security index” — Obama’s relationship with communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn was enough to disqualify him for the presidency.

Kincaid goes on to assert that "The liberals will raise a hue and cry, and some conservatives may balk, but it is mandatory and necessary to begin addressing what an old congressional committee used to call “un-American activities” at the highest levels of the U.S. Government."

Kincaid repeats his point at the end of the column: "We are faced with the problem of U.S.-based Marxists supporting our foreign enemies. These are dangerous times for America. The Congress must re-establish a House Internal Security Committee." The House Internal Security Committee was the euphemistic re-naming of the Un-American Activities Committee.

A Dec. 8 CNSNews.com article by Pete Winn falsely asserted that the Southern Poverty Law Center "announced that it was going to classify the Family Research Council and 12 other organizations as 'hate groups' because of their positions on homosexuality."

In fact, as Right Wing Watch hasnoted, the SPLC named only five anti-gay groups to its "hate groups" list. Other groups Winn listed as being named to the "hate group" list -- the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Concerned Women for America, Coral Ridge Ministries, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage -- were merely profiled by the SPLC.

Winn also wrote that right-wing former attorney general Edwin Meese said the SPLC "had cited no evidence whatsoever to show that the FRC or the other major pro-family conservative organizations were hate groups," quoting Meese as saying, "I think it is attacking them for exercising their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion." Winn also writes that the National Association of Marriage's Maggie Gallagher similarly said that the SPLC "has not presented any evidence to back up its claim that the groups it named were 'hate' groups"; Winn adds that "In a blog posting on its Web site, the SPLC said only that the FRC and the other groups 'have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.'"

In fact, the SPLC report on anti-gay groups -- linked nowhere in Winn's article -- serves up detailed evidence to back up its claims, including a lengthy section on the FRC detailing how it has "pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia." The report also states that "Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups."